Taiwan’s Political Status: Historical Background and Its Implications for U.S. Policy

Taiwan’s Political Status: Historical

Background and Its Implications for U.S.

Policy

(name redactedSpecialist in Asian Affairs

November 3, 2009

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

RS22388

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Taiwan’s Political Status: Historical Background and Its Implications for U.S. Policy

Summary

In 1979, official U.S. relations with Taiwan (the Republic of China) became a casualty of the

American decision to recognize the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as

China’s sole legitimate government. Since then, U.S. unofficial relations with Taiwan have been

built on the framework of the Taiwan Relations Act (P.L. 96-8) and shaped by three U.S.-China

communiqués. Under these agreements, the United States maintains its official relations with the

PRC while selling Taiwan military weapons and having extensive economic, political, and

security interests there. But developments in both the PRC and Taiwan political systems mean

U.S. officials continually are facing new policy choices. These developments include ongoing

transformations in both Taiwan’s and the PRC’s political systems, economic and trade cycles and,

in 2008, a renewal of contacts, talks, and agreements between the two sides.

This report is intended as a background overview of the historical and political complexity

associated with Taiwan’s status in the world and its continuing policy ramifications. In brief, this

report discusses the civil war on China in the 1940s that resulted in the victory of communist

forces and the ROC government’s flight to Taiwan; reviews the Taiwan government’s continued

recognition as the sole government of China by much of the world and the United States until

1979; and discusses the Taiwan government’s eventual loss of diplomatic relations with the

United States and with all but a handful of countries. The report further discusses how the United

States handles its extensive ongoing economic and security interests in Taiwan in the absence of

official relations, and places in context the recurring policy complications that these interests pose

for U.S. relations with the PRC. This report lays out the background and framework that affect

how U.S. relations with both Taiwan and China are conducted today. This report will not be

updated, and readers wishing to follow current policy issues involving Taiwan and China should

consult other regularly updated CRS reports. As of the date of this report, these include CRS

Report R40493, Taiwan-U.S. Relations: Developments and Policy Implications; and CRS Report

RL30957, Taiwan: Major U.S. Arms Sales Since 1990.

Relevant legislation introduced in the 111th Congress as of the date of this report includes a

measure that would establish diplomatic relations with Taiwan (H.Con.Res. 18, introduced

January 9, 2009); a measure expressing U.S. concern over and support for peaceful resolution to

Taiwan’s political status (H.Con.Res. 200, introduced October 15, 2009); a provision funding

democracy assistance to Taiwan (in S. 1434, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2010, introduced July 9, 2009); and a provision

requiring the Pentagon to assess and submit a report on the capabilities of Taiwan’s air force and a

five-year plan for fulfilling U.S. defense obligations to Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act (in

S. 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010, introduced July 2, 2009).

Congressional Research Service

Taiwan’s Political Status: Historical Background and Its Implications for U.S. Policy

Contents

From the Mainland to Taiwan......................................................................................................1

Official U.S. Recognition of PRC in 1979 ...................................................................................2

The Taiwan Relations Act (P.L. 96-8) ....................................................................................3

Infrastructure of U.S.-Taiwan Relations Under the TRA ..................................................4

U.S. Arms Sales Commitments to Taiwan .......................................................................5

Strategic Ambiguity ..............................................................................................................5

Policy Implications and Issues for Congress ................................................................................6

Figures

Figure 1. Taiwan’s Location off China Coast ...............................................................................1

Figure 2. Taiwan’s Location in Asia.............................................................................................2

Contacts

Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 10

Congressional Research Service

Taiwan’s Political Status: Historical Background and Its Implications for U.S. Policy

From the Mainland to Taiwan

With the victory of Mao Tse-tung and his Communist Party military forces on mainland China in

1949, the remnants of the government of America’s former World War II ally, the Republic of

China (ROC) led by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, fled to the island of Taiwan off the south

China coast. For the next thirty years, both regimes claimed legitimacy as the sole legal

government of the Chinese people. In Beijing on October 1, 1949, a victorious Mao proclaimed

the creation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Meanwhile, Chiang Kai-shek established a

temporary capital for his government in Taipei, Taiwan, declaring the ROC still to be the

legitimate Chinese government-in-exile and vowing that one day he would “retake the mainland”

and drive out communist forces. 1

The United States initially appeared reluctant

Figure 1.Taiwan’s Location off China

to support the ROC’s claim of legitimacy, and

Coast

there is evidence that President Harry Truman

was prepared to abandon Chiang’s

government on Taiwan and deal with Mao’s

PRC regime. 2 But that U.S. position quickly

evaporated with North Korea’s surprise

invasion of South Korea on June 25, 1950.

Within a week, President Truman ordered

U.S. air, naval, and ground forces to go to

South Korea’s aid and ordered the U.S. 7th

fleet to prevent any attack on Taiwan, saying

that “determination of the future status of

Formosa [the island’s designation as a

Japanese colony] must await the restoration

of security in the Pacific ...”3 U.S. support for

the ROC was solidified when Chinese

Communist forces entered the Korean War in

support of North Korea in October-November

1950. As a result, in April 1951, the United

Source: CIA World Factbook online.

States resumed direct military assistance to

the ROC government on Taiwan, and in 1954

the United States and Chiang’s government

signed the U.S.-ROC Mutual Defense Treaty, making the two governments allies once again. This

remained the situation for three decades: Taiwan and China remained officially at war; the United

States continued to support the ROC claim as the legitimate government of all China, refused to

1

At this time and for most of the next 53 years, both the PRC and the ROC claimed Taiwan as a province of China.

Taiwan’s provincial capital remained at Taichung.

2

On January 5, 1950, for example, President Truman announced the United States “would not provide military aid or

advice to [Chiang’s] Chinese forces” on Taiwan. On June 7, 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson said in a news

conference that while the United States did not support transferring Chinese representation in the United Nations to the

PRC, it would not use its U.N. Security Council veto to block a move to do so.

3

“Statement by the President on the Situation in Korea,” June 27, 1950. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/

viewpapers.php?pid=800 President Truman’s reference to “Formosa” uses the name by which Taiwan was known

under Japanese sovereignty (China ceded Taiwan’s sovereignty to Japan under the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki).

Congressional Research Service

1

Taiwan’s Political Status: Historical Background and Its Implications for U.S. Policy

recognize the legitimacy of the PRC, and maintained a defense alliance with the ROC

government on Taiwan. For much of this time, the ROC government continued to represent China

in the United Nations and other international organizations.4

Official U.S. Recognition of PRC in 1979

In the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S.-ROC Mutual Defense Treaty allowed U.S. forces to use Taiwan

as a forward base against Sino-Soviet communism in Asia. But after President Nixon’s diplomatic

opening to Beijing in 1971-72 and the major pullback of U.S. forces in Asia under the guidelines

of the “Nixon doctrine,” U.S. officials began to view Beijing more as a strategic asset against the

Soviet Union than as an adversary to be confronted in the Taiwan Strait.5 The Nixon overtures

resulted in the so-called “Shanghai Communiqué” of 1972 (the first of three U.S.-China

communiqués) which set the stage for the reversal of U.S. post-WWII China policy.

Figure 2.Taiwan’s Location in Asia

Source: CIA World Factbook online.

4

The ROC was a founding member of the U.N. in 1945 as well as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

In the 1960s, countries sympathetic to the PRC began introducing regular resolutions in the General Assembly to

remove Taiwan from that body and seat the PRC as the representative of China. U.S.-led actions successfully blocked

these resolutions until October 25, 1971, when two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly passed Resolution

2758, withdrawing recognition from the ROC and recognizing the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China.

Taiwan’s government has reapplied for U.N. membership and/or observer status since 1991—unsuccessfully until

April 29, 2009, when the WHO invited Taiwan to attend its May 18-27, 2009 meeting as an observer.

5

President Nixon first used the PRC’s formal name in his “State of the World” report to Congress on Feb. 25, 1971,

(Jones, DuPre, ed., China: U.S. Policy Since 1945, Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1980, pp. 321-322); National Security

Advisor Henry Kissinger left for his first, secret trip to China on July 9, 1971; Nixon made his historic visit to China on

February 21, 1972.

Congressional Research Service

2

Taiwan’s Political Status: Historical Background and Its Implications for U.S. Policy

Official U.S. recognition of PRC legitimacy did not come until 1979, after the Carter

Administration made a surprise announcement on December 15, 1978, that the United States

would sever official relations with the ROC government on Taiwan and recognize the PRC

government in Beijing on January 1 of the new year.6 In the Joint Communiqué on Establishing

Diplomatic Relations that announced the change, the United States acknowledged (an important

distinction in future debate on the U.S. “one-China” policy) that both the PRC and ROC

governments claimed there was only one China and that Taiwan was a province of it.7 As part of

the process of recognizing the PRC government, U.S. officials also notified the ROC government

(Taiwan) that the United States intended to terminate, effective January 1, 1980, its military

obligations toward Taiwan under the 1954 U.S.-ROC Mutual Defense Treaty. In a unilateral

statement released on December 16, 1978, the United States declared that it “continues to have an

interest in the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue and expects that the Taiwan issue will be

settled peacefully by the Chinese themselves.”8

In an important historical side-note, President Carter’s unilateral decision to terminate the U.S.ROC Mutual Defense Treaty in accordance with the treaty’s terms (which permitted either party

to terminate it with one year’s notice) resulted in a landmark lawsuit over congressional

constitutional prerogatives that went all the way to the Supreme Court. The suit, brought by

Senator Barry Goldwater, alleged that the Senate’s constitutional role in approving treaties

required President Carter to consult the Senate before ending a treaty. (The constitution is silent

on how U.S. treaties can be terminated.) After decisions and reversals in Federal District Court,

the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in 1979 issued a ruling which among other things

stated that the President did not have to seek congressional approval before ending the U.S.-ROC

Mutual Defense Treaty. Senator Goldwater appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which on

December 13, 1979, denied his appeal, leaving the appellate court’s ruling standing.

The Taiwan Relations Act (P.L. 96-8)

While the record shows that the 96th Congress in 1979 clearly concurred with the strategic

imperative of normalizing relations with the PRC, many Members were unhappy with what they

saw as the Carter Administration’s minimal proposals for continued dealings with the ROC

government on Taiwan. In particular, some were concerned that the package of legislation the

White House submitted to Congress to govern future unofficial relations with Taiwan—the

“Taiwan Enabling Act”—did not go far enough in protecting either Taiwan’s or U.S. interests.

Congressional debate on the legislation in 1979 was extensive and complicated. The end result

was passage of a much amended version of the Administration’s proposal—the Taiwan Relations

Act (TRA—P.L. 96-8)—which remains the domestic legal authority for conducting unofficial

U.S. relations with Taiwan today.9 Much of the TRA deals with the logistics of U.S.-Taiwan

6

In recognizing the legitimacy of the PRC government, the United States fulfilled 3 conditions that Beijing had

consistently placed on normalization of relations: withdrawal of all U.S. military forces from Taiwan; severing of

diplomatic relations with Taiwan; and termination of the U.S.-Taiwan defense treaty.

7

Widely and over-simply referred to as the “one China policy,” this and other “one-China”-like statements for decades

have been parsed and dissected by each involved government for every conceivable nuance. The various iterations of

“one-China” policy formulations can be found in CRS Report RL30341, China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China”

Policy—Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei, by (name redacted).

8

Jones, DuPre, ed., p. 342.

9

For more detailed discussions of congressional actions at the time, see “Congress and U.S. policy in Asia: New

relationships with China and Taiwan,” in Congress and Foreign Policy—1979, House Committee on Foreign Affairs,

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 1980, pp. 54-71; Wolff, Lester L. And Simon, David L., eds.,

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

3

Taiwan’s Political Status: Historical Background and Its Implications for U.S. Policy

relations: the establishment of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) as the unofficial U.S.

representative for diplomatic interactions with Taiwan, including details about its staffing,

functions, and funding.10 Of particular relevance for long-term U.S. policy are Section 2 (b) and

Section 3 of the TRA, dealing with U.S. strategic interests in and arms sales commitments to

Taiwan; and Section 4, allowing for the continued application of existing U.S. laws and treaties

with Taiwan in the absence of official diplomatic ties.

Infrastructure of U.S.-Taiwan Relations Under the TRA

The dissolution of U.S. diplomatic relations with Taiwan placed Taiwan into a unique legal noman’s land that the TRA was designed to redress. One set of considerations involved how

Taiwan—essentially rendered a legal “non-state” by the severing of relations—was to be treated

under U.S. law after 1978. Many of these issues are addressed in Section 4 of the TRA, which

specifies that in matters of U.S. law, Taiwan is to be treated in a manner consistent with the way

that “foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities” are treated, irrespective

of other provisions in U.S. law concerning the requirements of maintaining diplomatic relations.

The TRA specifically includes in this treatment the maintenance of all treaties (agreements

between sovereign states); the continuation of “the ownership of or other rights or interests in

properties, tangible and intangible, and other things of value” owned by the governing authorities

on Taiwan prior to December 31, 1978; immigration laws; and the capacity of Taiwan to sue and

be sued in U.S. courts.

In another key issue, the severing of diplomatic relations with Taiwan left both the Taiwan and

U.S. governments with no practicable official way of managing programs, transactions, financial

arrangements, consular services, or other relations with each other. Sections 6 through 9 of the

TRA, then, established a non-profit, tax-exempt corporation separate from the U.S. government—

the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT)—to handle those issues with Taiwan that would have

been conducted by U.S. government authorities such as the State Department if diplomatic

relations existed. The AIT is funded through an annual U.S. government appropriation and has

offices in Taiwan (in Taipei and Kaohsiung) as well as in Washington, DC (headquartered in

Arlington, Virginia). In providing for staffing for the AIT, Section 11 of the TRA states that U.S.

government officers or employees may separate from the U.S. government in order to take a

position with AIT. Upon completion of their service with AIT, such U.S. government employees

are entitled to return to comparable positions in the U.S. government with no loss of “attendant

rights, privileges, and benefits ... ”11 The title of the head of the U.S. AIT is “Director.”

The TRA provided for a comparable “Taiwan Instrumentality” in Section 10, authorizing the

President to extend similar privileges and immunities to Taiwan officers of this instrumentality as

Taiwan extended to AIT officials. Originally established as the Coordination Council for North

American Affairs, (or CCNAA), the Taiwan office in Washington, DC, has been known as the

Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative’s Office (TECRO) since 1994. In addition, TECRO

oversees twelve other offices throughout the United States, known as Taiwan Economic and

Cultural Offices (TECO); these are in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Guam, Honolulu, Houston,

(...continued)

Legislative History of the Taiwan Relations Act, American Association for Chinese Studies, Jamaica, New York, 1982;

Jones, DuPre, ed., China: U.S. Policy Since 1945, Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1980.

10

See the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) website at http://www.ait.org.tw/en/.

11

Taiwan Relations Act, P.L. 96-8, Section 11 (2).

Congressional Research Service

4

Taiwan’s Political Status: Historical Background and Its Implications for U.S. Policy

Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle. The title of the head of

TECRO is “Representative.” AIT and TECRO officials operate on behalf of their governments in

dealing with each other’s governments.

U.S. Arms Sales Commitments to Taiwan

Although it is a common misperception that the TRA mandates the United States to defend

Taiwan in case of attack, nothing in the TRA specifically obligates the United States to come to

Taiwan’s defense or to resort to military conflict on Taiwan’s behalf. Section 2 of the TRA speaks

in broad terms about U.S. interests in peaceful resolution to the Taiwan question, saying that any

forceful resolution would be of “grave concern to the United States,” and further states that U.S.

policy is to “maintain the capacity of the United States to resist ... coercion” in addressing the

Taiwan issue. Section 3 provides for the sale of U.S. defense articles and services to Taiwan, but

it is non-specific about the nature of these articles. It merely calls for “such defense articles and

services ... as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.”

Section 3 gives Congress a role in determining what needs Taiwan may have.

Much of the U.S. debate on Taiwan arms sales since the TRA was enacted has involved differing

judgments—often between Congress and the White House—about what should be the capabilities

and quantities of the “necessary” articles and services provided for in Section 3 of the TRA.12 A

more recent U.S. debate has evolved since 2001, after Taiwan itself began to appear increasingly

hesitant (for domestic political reasons) to invest in some of the weapons systems that the United

States offered for sale under the TRA. This latter development—undoubtedly unforeseen at the

time of the TRA’s enactment—raises potentially consequential questions for Congress about how,

or even if, the United States can honor its commitments under Section 3 of the TRA if Taiwan

seems unwilling to participate meaningfully in expanding or at least in maintaining its own selfdefense capacity, particularly in the face of significant and ongoing military improvements in the

PRC.13

Strategic Ambiguity

After normalization of Sino-U.S. relations and the severing of the U.S.-ROC military alliance, the

PRC was largely satisfied with U.S. “one-China” formulations alluding to Taiwan’s political

status. But upon Congress’ passage of the TRA, PRC leaders objected strenuously to the act’s

provision for continued U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, regarding it as a violation of U.S.

commitments to end its military alliance with Taipei. After two years of bilateral tensions, a U.S.PRC joint communiqué—the third and final Sino-U.S. communiqué since Nixon’s opening to

China in 1972—addressed this point on August 17, 1982. In that communiqué, the PRC cited it

had a “fundamental policy” of striving for a peaceful solution to the Taiwan question, while

Washington stated that the United States did not:

12

CRS Report RL30957, Taiwan: Major U.S. Arms Sales Since 1990, by (name redacted).

In a 2005 speech to the U.S.-Taiwan Business Council-Defense Industry Conference 2005, Ed Ross, Director of

DOD’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency, strongly criticized Taiwan’s foot-dragging on passage of a defense

budget that would allow purchases of U.S. weapons, saying it was reasonable in such a situation to question the level of

U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s self-defense. Agence France-Presse, “Pentagon official warns Taiwan on defense

spending,” September 21, 2005.

13

Congressional Research Service

5

Taiwan’s Political Status: Historical Background and Its Implications for U.S. Policy

seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan, that its arms sales to Taiwan

will not exceed, either in qualitative or quantitative terms, the level of those supplied in

recent years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and

China, and that it intends to reduce gradually its sales of arms to Taiwan.14

The three U.S.-PRC communiqués and the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act for decades served as the

framework by which U.S. officials balanced two competing policy objectives—widely referred to

as U.S. “strategic ambiguity” about Taiwan. On the one hand were three communiqués in which

U.S. policymakers recognized the legitimacy of the PRC government, appeared to acknowledge

there was only “one China,” and suggested an eventual ending point to U.S. weapons sales to

Taiwan. On the other was the TRA in which the United States established a statutory framework

for maintaining extensive unofficial contacts with Taiwan and which committed the United States

to providing weapons for Taiwan’s defense against what most saw as Taiwan’s only potential

enemy—the PRC. “Strategic ambiguity” remained the basis of U.S. Taiwan policy throughout the

1980s and well into the 1990s, and many observers give it much of the credit for helping to

facilitate U.S.-China relations, preserve U.S.-Taiwan contacts, and protect Taiwan’s own political

and economic interests.

Policy Implications and Issues for Congress

Despite the policy framework of the TRA and the three communiqués, Taiwan continues to be a

particularly complex issue for U.S. policy and a recurring issue for Congress. Some of these

complicating factors are old issues arising from the political compromises that the 1979

normalization process demanded—notably, the “one-China” formulation, U.S. security interests

in and arms sales to Taiwan, and the U.S. position on Taiwan’s status in key international

organizations. Other complications are the result of changing political trends, particularly in

Taiwan, that have presented increasing challenges for the policy framework. These issues crop up

periodically in congressional debate in ways that occasionally prompt comment from U.S.

government officials.

One such recurring issue concerns the U.S. position on Taiwan’s membership in international

organizations, such as the World Health Organization and the United Nations. The policy

parameters in Section 4(d) of the Taiwan Relations Act make the following specific

pronouncement on this point: “Nothing in this Act may be construed as a basis for supporting the

exclusion or expulsion of Taiwan from continued membership in any international financial

institution or any other international organization.” But nuance has crept into this TRA

formulation in subsequent U.S. Administrations. In his “three no’s” statement of June 30, 1998,

for example, President Bill Clinton said “... we don’t believe that Taiwan should be a member of

any organization for which statehood is a requirement.” Some claim that this phraseology is a

misinterpretation of the relevant provision in the TRA.

14

While the 1982 communiqué was being negotiated, the Taiwan government presented the United States with six

points it proposed be used as guidelines in conducting U.S.-Taiwan relations. According to former Ambassador John

Holdridge, the United States agreed to these points—the so-called “six assurances.” The six points included assurances

that the United States would not set a date for termination of arms sales to Taiwan, would not alter the terms of the

Taiwan Relations Act, and would not pressure Taiwan to negotiate with China or act as mediator between Taiwan and

China. See CRS Report 96-246, Taiwan: Texts of the Taiwan Relations Act, the U.S. - China Communiques, and the

"Six Assurances", by (name redacted), for text of the “six assurances.”

Congressional Research Service

6

Taiwan’s Political Status: Historical Background and Its Implications for U.S. Policy

Another such issue concerns the U.S. “one-China” policy formulation. Although the United States

has never repudiated and in fact has continued forcefully to restate that commitment, purists can

argue that the U.S. iterations of the “one China” policy over the years have departed from the

original formulation in subtle but significant ways. The first two joint communiqués, below,

address the “one China” issue in a similar manner, in contrast to the third communiqué, which

injects more nuance into the formulation:

•

“The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait

maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States

Government does not challenge that position.” – The Joint U.S.-China Communiqué,

Shanghai, February 1972

•

“The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese

position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.” – The Joint

Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between the United

States of America and the People’s Republic of China, January 1, 1979

•

“In the Joint Communiqué [of January 1, 1979]... the United States of America

...acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is

part of China.... The United States Government attaches great importance to its

relations with China, and reiterates that it has no intention of infringing on

Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity, or interfering in China’s internal

affairs, or pursuing a policy of ‘two Chinas’ or ‘one China, one Taiwan.’” – The

U.S.-China Joint Communiqué, August 17, 1982.

Enacted between the second and third communiqué, the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 leaves the

“one-China” question unaddressed. But language in the Conference Report suggests that the 96th

Congress wanted to emphasize the “one-China” formulation contained in the first two

communiqués. As the Conference Report states: “[The U.S. Administration] has acknowledged

the Chinese position that Taiwan is a part of China, but the United States has not itself agreed to

this position.” Subsequent iterations by a series of U.S. Administrations concerning U.S. policy

on Taiwan almost always have adhered to bare-bones statements, with each being parsed and

dissected meticulously by the parties involved for any hidden nuance or perceived change. 15

A third issue is the question of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, for which the TRA makes provision.

Despite the 1982 communiqué in which the United States expressed intent to reduce and

eventually end annual arms sales to Taiwan, such sales not only have continued but in some years

have increased substantially—notably, with the George W. Bush Administration’s April 2001

weapons sale package to Taiwan that included, among other systems, four decommissioned Kiddclass destroyers, 12 anti-submarine warfare P-3 aircraft, and eight diesel submarines. This sale

was surpassed in size and value only by the 1992 sale of 150 F-16 aircraft to Taiwan by the

George H. W. Bush Administration.

Debate also regularly recurs over what the United States should do if the PRC uses force against

Taiwan. Some observers focus on the lack of any mandate in the TRA for U.S. military

intervention, while others point out that the TRA bases the entire foundation of U.S.-PRC official

15

The convoluted evolution of “one-China” policy statements among all three governments can be found in CRS

Report RL30341, China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China” Policy—Key Statements from Washington, Beijing,

and Taipei, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

7

Taiwan’s Political Status: Historical Background and Its Implications for U.S. Policy

relations on the premise that Taiwan’s future will be resolved peacefully. 16 Some believe that the

potential for U.S. military conflict with China over Taiwan has grown given the PRC’s military

build-up opposite Taiwan, Beijing’s refusal to renounce using force against the island, and

intermittent but troubling U.S.-PRC naval encounters in the western Pacific and the South China

Sea. Others suggest the potential for conflict has been minimized given the growing

rapprochement, renewed negotiations, and cross-Strait ties between the PRC and Taiwan that

have occurred after the 2008 election of Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou. In the years ahead, U.S.

officials also are likely to continue to debate the medium and longer-term implications of China’s

military buildup on the PRC-Taiwan strategic military balance, particularly as it affects U.S.

responsibilities under the TRA to assist Taiwan’s self-defense.

The biggest complicating factor for U.S. policymakers today may come from Taiwan’s own

political circumstances, which have changed dramatically since Congress passed the 1979 TRA.17

Under the authoritarian rule of Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist Party (also known as the KMT),

Taiwan’s political decisions were predictable, closely aligned with U.S. interests, and dependent

largely on U.S. support. But several decades of political reforms have made Taiwan politics not

only more democratic and more nationalistic, but more fluid and harder to predict.

Given the historical record and with continuing transformations in both the PRC and Taiwan

political systems, U.S. officials may be facing new and more difficult policy choices concerning

Taiwan in the coming years. While many consider Taiwan’s continuing democratic maturation,

most recently demonstrated by the 2008 presidential election, to be a validation of U.S. goals for

the spread of democratic values, that democratization also further emphasizes the unique and

delicate challenges for U.S. policy that Taiwan poses. The U.S. government continues to embrace

the efficacy of the fundamental U.S. policy framework on Taiwan—defined by one observer as

“one-China, peaceful resolution, U.S. arms sales, the Taiwan Relations Act, and the three

communiqués.” But other observers, including some Members of Congress, appear critical of

what they see as excessive U.S. secretiveness and substantive “inflexibility” on Taiwan issues.

Criticism has been leveled especially at the secretive set of “Taiwan Guidelines”—a lengthy and

closely held State Department memo written in 1979-1980 purporting to govern what U.S.

officials can and cannot do or say with respect to Taiwan after the severance of official U.S.Taiwan relations.18 Under the “Guidelines,” for instance, the U.S. government maintains that

senior U.S. officials are unable to have any contact with senior Taiwan officials, and that Taiwan

officials cannot be received in U.S. government buildings, because the United States does not

recognize the government in Taiwan as the legitimate Chinese government. The full “Guidelines”

reportedly are extremely confidential even within the U.S. government apparatus, although

officials in relevant U.S. government departments are reminded of their basic premises

periodically in an abbreviated memo. Reportedly, the only official modification of the

“Guidelines” since their original inception occurred during the Clinton Administration in 19931994, the principal change being the initiation of U.S. high-level engagement with Taiwan for

16

Section 2(b)(3) of the TRA states that it is U.S. policy “to make clear that the United States decision to establish

diplomatic relations with the [PRC] rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful

means.”

17

See CRS Report R40493, Taiwan-U.S. Relations: Developments and Policy Implications, by (name redacted).

18

According to one former U.S. government official interviewed on July 5, 2006, much pertaining to the “Guidelines”

is simply commonly understood practice—such as that high State Department and other senior U.S. government

officials cannot go to Taiwan.

Congressional Research Service

8

Taiwan’s Political Status: Historical Background and Its Implications for U.S. Policy

economic entities.19 The only public issuance of these modifications appears to have been given

in the 1994 testimony of Winston Lord, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia, before the

Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 20

As of the date of this report, evidence suggests that the administration of President Barack Obama

will continue to pursue the overall policy direction toward the PRC and Taiwan that past U.S.

administrations have followed. But within this broad framework, it still is unclear what shading,

if any, the Administration may give to the U.S. policy direction or whether administration

officials will undertake another Taiwan policy review to respond to new developments.

Some Members of Congress and former U.S. government officials, for instance, have suggested

that there is room for more flexibility on the logistics of daily U.S. interaction with Taiwan. In

this view, the United States could ease the constraints on U.S. interaction with Taiwan and make

clear that routine practical interactions—such as higher-level working visits, permitting Taiwan

officials to enter the premises of the State Department and the National Security Council, or more

routine treatment of requests for U.S. visits by senior Taiwan officials—have no implications for

the U.S. “one China” policy. A few have taken the notion of flexibility even farther, arguing that

the United States should scrap the “one China” policy altogether, despite the potentially grave

costs to U.S.-China relations, and establish diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

Reflecting these views, Members of Congress in recent years have introduced a number of

measures calling for changes or for greater flexibility in U.S. policy on Taiwan. Measures

introduced in the 111th Congress as of this writing include:

•

A bill establishing diplomatic relations with Taiwan: H.Con.Res. 18 (introduced

January 9, 2009, by Representative John Linder);

•

A measure expressing U.S. concern over and support for peaceful resolution to

Taiwan’s political status: H.Con.Res. 200 (introduced October 15, 2009, by

Representative Robert Andrews);

•

A provision funding democracy assistance to Taiwan: in S. 1434, the Department

of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2010

(introduced July 9, 2009);

•

And a provision requiring the Pentagon to assess and submit a report on the

capabilities of Taiwan’s air force and a five-year plan for fulfilling U.S. defense

obligations to Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act: in S. 1390, the National

Defense Authorization Act for FY2010 (introduced July 2, 2009).

19

Some observers point out that the Taiwan Guidelines seem to have been bent on at least two other occasions without

official modification—when U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills, a cabinet officer, went to Taiwan in December

1992 to discuss U.S.-Taiwan trade ties, and when Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui in 1995 became the first Taiwan

president since 1979 permitted to make a landmark “unofficial” visit to the United States.

20

Hearing on Taiwan Policy, Senate Foreign Relations Committee/East Asian and Pacific Affairs, September 27, 1994.

Congressional Research Service

9

Taiwan’s Political Status: Historical Background and Its Implications for U.S. Policy

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Specialist in Asian Affairs

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

10

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

copyright on any CRS report we have republished.